Dark matter does not contain certain axion-like particles

April 22, 2016
Credit: Aurore Simonnet, Sonoma State University (for the illustration) and NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring

Researches at Stockholm University are getting closer to light dark-matter particle models. Observations rule out some axion-like particles in the quest for the content of dark matter. The article is now published in the Physical Review Letters.

Physicists are still struggling with the conundrum of identifying more than 80 percent of the matter in the universe. One possibility is that it is made up of extremely particles that weigh less than a billionth of the mass of an electron. These particles are often called axion-like particles (ALPs). Since ALPs are hard to find, the researchers have not yet been able to test different types of ALPs that could be a constituent of .

For the first time, the researchers used data from NASA's gamma-ray telescope on the Fermi satellite to study light from the central galaxy of the Perseus galaxy cluster in the hunt for ALPs. The researchers found no traces of ALPs and for the first time, the observations were sensitive enough to exclude certain types of ALPs (ALPs can only constitute dark matter if they have certain characteristics).

ALPs cannot be detected directly, but there is a small chance that they transform into ordinary light and vice versa when traveling through a magnetic field. A research team at Stockholm University used a very bright light source, the central galaxy of the Perseus galaxy cluster, to look for these transformations. The gamma radiation from this galaxy could change its nature to ALPs while traveling through the that fills the gas between the galaxies in the cluster.

"The ALPs we have been able to exclude could explain a certain amount of dark matter. What is particularly interesting is that with our analysis we are reaching a sensitivity that we thought could only be obtained with dedicated future experiments on Earth", says Manuel Meyer, post-doc at the Department of Physics, Stockholm University.

Searches for ALPs with the Fermi telescope will continue. More than 80 percent of the matter in the universe is unidentified. Dark matter shows itself only through its gravity, neither absorbing nor radiating any form of light.

Explore further: Possible signature of dark matter annihilation detected

More information: M. Ajello et al. Search for Spectral Irregularities due to Photon–Axionlike-Particle Oscillations with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.161101

Related Stories

Possible signature of dark matter annihilation detected

March 28, 2016

We live in a dramatic epoch of astrophysics. Breakthrough discoveries like exoplanets, gravitational waves from merging black holes, or cosmic acceleration seem to arrive every decade, or even more often. But perhaps no discovery ...

NASA image: The Alps in winter

January 1, 2016

European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut and Expedition 46 Flight Engineer Tim Peake (@astro_timpeake) photographed the Alps from his vantage point aboard the International Space Station on Dec. 27, 2015.

Dwarf dark galaxy hidden in ALMA gravitational lens image

April 14, 2016

Subtle distortions hidden in ALMA's stunning image of the gravitational lens SDP.81 are telltale signs that a dwarf dark galaxy is lurking in the halo of a much larger galaxy nearly 4 billion light-years away. This discovery ...

Image: Hubble looks into a cosmic kaleidoscope

March 28, 2016

At first glance, this cosmic kaleidoscope of purple, blue and pink offers a strikingly beautiful—and serene—snapshot of the cosmos. However, this multi-colored haze actually marks the site of two colliding galaxy clusters, ...

Recommended for you

Brittle starfish shows how to make tough ceramics

December 8, 2017

An international team lead by researchers at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, together with colleagues from the European Synchrotron, Grenoble, France, have discovered how an echinoderm called Ophiocoma wendtii, known ...

103 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
2.6 / 5 (36) Apr 22, 2016


How can anyone imagine they know this until you first prove DM even exists? I guess they forgot about that part of the hypotheses. It won't matter, when you're Enthusiastic about something, reality doesn't matter.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (32) Apr 22, 2016
How can anyone imagine they know this until you first prove DM even exists? I guess they forgot about that part of the hypotheses.

*Sigh*

"DM" is a label for an observed effect, not a hypothesis.
Axions are a hypothesis (some flavors of which have been show to be not possible with the work described here)

It won't matter, when you're Enthusiastic about something, reality doesn't matter.

Your comments won't matter until you understand the difference between label and hypothesis.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (34) Apr 22, 2016
How can anyone imagine they know this until you first prove DM even exists? I guess they forgot about that part of the hypotheses. It won't matter, when you're Enthusiastic about something, reality doesn't matter.


...........now I get it, it just dawned on me that they know dark matter does not contain certain axion-like particles because they can't prove it exists.

"DM" is a label for an observed effect, not a hypothesis.
Axions are a hypothesis (some flavors of which have been show to be not possible with the work described here)
..........you are totally clueless about Observed effects versus Measurements. Your degree in Human Biology does not work in the fields of mathematically based sciences.

antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (28) Apr 22, 2016
you are totally clueless about Observed effects versus Measurements.

We observe the effects via measurement. How else would you pbserve them?

Your degree in Human Biology does not work in the fields of mathematically based sciences.

My degree is based onwork in software and inventing novel algorithm as well as extensive use of statistical analyses. There's a fair bit of math in that
(beyond that I have a bit of a mathematical background from my masters degree in EE and also private studies...so yeah. I'm a hell of a lot more confident in my mathematical abilities than yours)
bschott
1.9 / 5 (27) Apr 22, 2016
Researches at Stockholm University are getting closer to light dark-matter particle models.


This would be a lot more newsworthy if the word "models" was not at the end of the above statement. Then again, when something doesn't exist as a particle, modelling it as one is as close as you will ever get to it being one.

I am now developing a model for 2 horned unicorns, and I am really close. It turns out all unicorns have 2 horns, you just can't see one of them...because it's dark.

The new name for unicorns will be Darkhornicorns...it's the only way to explain the balanced neck muscles of the unicorns, they must have a second "dark" horn...trust me, the math works out.
compose
Apr 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
physman
3.6 / 5 (29) Apr 22, 2016
@bschott Electrons are also a model too, you've never directly perceived an electron right? Yet you believe in electrons (I'm hoping you do...)

And why do you believe in them? They are described by theory with testable outcomes, validated through observation and experimentation.

As we see here: Dark Matter is observed to exist, we have developed new theories to explain this with testable outcomes, the experiment from this article has been performed that has invalidated some of these hypotheses through observation. Science bitch!

Now come back when you have something more interesting and witty than Darkhornincorns.
compose
Apr 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
physman
3.7 / 5 (21) Apr 22, 2016
@compose You are pretty much proving my point here.

Firstly, you're seeing photons not electrons. (You believe in photons right?)

Secondly, "mutual repulsing forces" i.e.according to our MODEL of electromagnetism, we have deduced through experimentation and observation that

a) like charges repel
b) we can accurately describe how electrons are affected by electromagnetic fields.
compose
Apr 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
physman
3.7 / 5 (21) Apr 22, 2016
@compose That is a very neat experiment right there but again, you are seeing PHOTONS from the bubbles! You are not seeing electrons directly. I'm 100% certain you will never show me evidence of perception of electrons because I will need to use photons to perceive your evidence.

But you can observe this right? https://en.wikipe...evidence
compose
Apr 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (16) Apr 22, 2016
The notion of dark matter as a weakly interacting clump of stuff that travels with the matter is incorrect. Dark matter fills 'empty' space. Dark matter strongly interacts with matter. Dark matter is displaced by matter.

[0903.3802] The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided

"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

What physicists mistake for the density of the dark matter is actually the state of displacement of the dark matter. Physicists think they are determining the density of the dark matter by how much it and the matter curve spacetime. What they fail to realize is the state of displacement of the dark matter is curved spacetime.
physman
3.4 / 5 (18) Apr 22, 2016
@compose you're not getting my point. Anyway, maybe in 100 years we will control dark matter as freely as we do electrons, then you may start to believe in its existence.

@liquidspacetime Okay that's it, I'm done for the day
compose
Apr 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
bschott
1.5 / 5 (24) Apr 22, 2016
@physman - We have isolated, studied, and most importantly, used electrons...not just modelled it.

When you have done this with a DM particle, come back and wow us all with your infinite wisdom and knowledge...until then, wallow in your imaginary particles pseudophysics bitch.
Benni
2.4 / 5 (28) Apr 22, 2016
I'm a hell of a lot more confident in my mathematical abilities than yours


You DM Enthusiasts believe in cosmic fairy dust precisely for the reason it's as mathless a concept as your degree in Human Biology.

A nutty professor name of Zwicky observes the redshift of Radial Arms of Spiral galaxies have a velocity of 100-300 km/sec, by which he concocts stupendously huge enshrouding clouds of an invisible substance that keeps the radial arms from imploding into the centers of Spiral galaxies............Talk about faith in the unseen, this is Creationism on parade & at the highest pinnacle of all that could be described as "faith based".
Phys1
4 / 5 (20) Apr 22, 2016
Another interesting discussion with psycho Benni and trashy bullschitt.
How are the differential equations coming along Benni.
Tell us more about tampons bullschitt.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (33) Apr 22, 2016
Benni blurts yet still cannot answer my many challenges re his Calculus
How can anyone imagine they know this until you first prove DM even exists?
Please get a grip on algebra re the missing factors.

Eg As claimed Electrical Engineer didn't you ever do lab time testing for unknown reactances as in singling out that wayward AC capacitor or the shorted turn in that inductor - based on high school algebra Benni, you embarrass yourself again & again, either get an education, a real one, or stop wasting everyone's time !

Benni says
I guess they forgot about that part of the hypotheses. It won't matter, when you're Enthusiastic about something, reality doesn't matter.
Like making a complete ass of yourself with personal attacks on antialias_physorg, me & others.

What low level have you stooped to again?

Get an education re Newton & paradigm re Uranus then Neptune then Mercury then Einstein's correction & learn method re Math deduction Benni re unknowns !
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (22) Apr 22, 2016
@DM grousers
You are confusing the hypothesis, "There is non-baryonic matter in the universe,"

with the observation,

"There is something (which we have not yet identified) that acts like massive matter that does not interact electromagnetically"

The first is still hypothetical, though there is much supporting evidence for it. Experiments are underway to detect it, and, yes, we have not been successful in directly detecting it yet.

The second is FACT, and is motivation for the first hypothesis. Since it is a hypothesis, alternatives HAVE been proposed, like modified gravity. Science is not squelching one idea over another. Each hypothesis has been considered, and thus far, the DM HYPOTHESIS prevails as the thing that does best in explaining the DM OBSERVATION.

At this point, you are simply jumping to conclusions by declaring the DM hypothesis false. All you're doing is tilting at windmills, by complaining about it. Physicists will sort it out.
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2016
@antialias_physorg
Did anything ever come of your idea regarding light-like curves?
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (19) Apr 22, 2016
bitch.

Are you really living in a trailer, bullschitt ?
NIPSZX
1.2 / 5 (10) Apr 22, 2016
Couldn't the web of space just be a coincidence and not caused by dark matter?
bschott
1.4 / 5 (20) Apr 22, 2016
bitch.

Are you really living in a trailer, bullschitt ?


I own one your mom rents off me by the hour for her "job"....

Tell us more about tampons bullschitt.


Used ones are your favorite sanck....thats the only thing I've got right now about them...unless you want to fill us in on some of your recipes....
bschott
1.4 / 5 (20) Apr 22, 2016
the observation,

"There is something (which we have not yet identified) that acts like massive matter that does not interact electromagnetically"


You are confusing YOUR interpretation of the observation with a universal one. A massive structure where the objects comprising it appear to be "held in place" requires both attractive and repulsive forces, not just one of the two.

the hypothesis, "There is non-baryonic matter in the universe,"


Matter without a magnetic field or an EM component....and repeated attempts to find it using instruments that can only detect photons...head...meet wall. Keep banging boys.

compose
Apr 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (16) Apr 22, 2016

Did anything ever come of your idea regarding light-like curves?

Unfortunately not. No answer from the Hayden Observatory
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (14) Apr 22, 2016
bitch.

Are you really living in a trailer, bullschitt ?


I own one

So you do .
Phys1
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 22, 2016
Tell us more about tampons bullschitt.


Used ones ...

You seem to be an expert.,
but you are on the wrong blog.
Phys1
3.5 / 5 (13) Apr 22, 2016
@bullschitt
So you live in a trailer and play with tampons.
Thanks for your honest sharing of this information.
You must feel relieved.
What was your background in physics again?
obama_socks
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2016
Today is Earth Day - 4/22/2016. Humans still haven't blown up the planet --- yet, so that is a good sign.

Also, the Earth will be in a position between Mars and the Sun. Mars being at its closest to Earth. Also a good sign that planetary orbits are as they should be.

40 earthquakes world-wide since the beginning of 2016. No tsunamis as yet. Earth is healthy and alive at this writing. Dark Matter, IF it exists, has no effect on the Solar System's health, and that is all that matters.
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2016
@Piss1
It appears that it is YOU who brought the subject of "tampons" into this thread, where it wasn't mentioned by anyone else. YOU said it first and then tried to pin it on bshott to make everyone believe that bshott had mentioned tampons first. That is dishonest fakery, Piss1. Are you proud of yourself? Yes? Following in Otto's footsteps, eh?

Phys1
3.7 / 5 (6) 5 hours ago
Another interesting discussion with psycho Benni and trashy bullschitt.
How are the differential equations coming along Benni.
Tell us more about tampons bullschitt.

RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (25) Apr 22, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Personal 'angle' of attack is more damaging to mainstream science-defenders credibility than Benni's scientifically mandated skepticism or bschott's reactions to your personal attacks! Chill. :)

Leave out person; concentrate on science.

When you do, you'll realize that:

- bschott's previous suggestion re clock/laser-comm system coincidences for confirming gravitational wave 'events' claimed by a-LIGO was a very good one; and since taken up by mainstream with gusto!

- Benni's skepticism is scientifically 'mandated', because, even with the modern sophistication of telescopes/instruments/analytical computing resources etc, the 'search' for 'exotic' DM is FAILING to convince anyone that 'exotic' DM is 'an observable' instead of just a MISINTERPRETATION* of 'an observable'.

* eg, I pointed out to Da Schneib that in-galaxy 'exotic' DM 'observables' were MISINTERPRETATION of NON-Keplerian regime motions! So GR is OK! No 'need' for 'exotic' DM.

Chill. :)
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 22, 2016
@bschott Electrons are also a model too, you've never directly perceived an electron right? Yet you believe in electrons (I'm hoping you do...)

And why do you believe in them? They are described by theory with testable outcomes, validated through observation and experimentation.
Actually you can see the impact of a single electron on a scintillation counter screen.

On edit: Yes this is indirect evidence but it's pretty compelling.
TehDog
4.5 / 5 (17) Apr 22, 2016
@RC
"- bschott's previous suggestion re clock/laser-comm system coincidences for confirming gravitational wave 'events' claimed by a-LIGO was a very good one; and since taken up by mainstream with gusto!"

No, it was shot down by myself and others. Do you wish to continue?
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2016
@RC
"- bschott's previous suggestion re clock/laser-comm system coincidences for confirming gravitational wave 'events' claimed by a-LIGO was a very good one; and since taken up by mainstream with gusto!"

No, it was shot down by myself and others. Do you wish to continue?


http://proceeding...=1731517

"The research of high-speed clock in space laser communication"
obama_socks
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 22, 2016
compose
Apr 22, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TehDog
4.5 / 5 (16) Apr 22, 2016
@O_S
This is the thread;
http://phys.org/n...ina.html
It's very long, and quite informative. Do make the effort to check any links you find.
And neither of your links are relevant, the first is to a chip,
http://www.analog...4350.pdf
the second to a (at present) non-existent system. Did you even look at them?
TehDog
4.5 / 5 (16) Apr 23, 2016
Oops, the first link refers to a method of using a chip, shame the paper's paywalled.
Hmm, https://en.wikipe.../Verilog
Interesting... More reading later, sleep now.
arnold_townsend
3.9 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2016


How can anyone imagine they know this until you first prove DM even exists? I guess they forgot about that part of the hypotheses. It won't matter, when you're Enthusiastic about something, reality doesn't matter.


I know what you mean but physics will have incredible problems if DM does not exist. We're talking major conundrum here -- enough to drive some physicist bonkers. There are physicists who are not convinced of the DM hypothesis and some have proposed a modified form of gravity to explain the observations. But there are no observations, yet, to show these modified gravity models explain any of the observed galactic rotations and some have been disproven. I tend to favor the DM but who knows, could be something even more exotic. Such conundrums are what led to Einstein's Special and General Relativity (using Lorentz's transformation for Special). Scientists could not find evidence of the "ether" nor explain why they could not -- the rest is history.
compose
Apr 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Colbourne
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2016
I remember reading something like this in an old English newspaper the Sunday Sport. "Apparently the WWII bomber on the moon is missing".
I think the whole theory of dark matter and dark energy is wrong and can be explained by another force.
Phys1
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2016
You cannot explain DM with gravity,

But you can explain gravity with DM.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2016
@o_pervert
It was actually your troll brother bullschitt
who brought it up in a discussion he could not win.
I just like to remind him of it.
Do you want his quotes on my mother as well?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (20) Apr 23, 2016
... physics will have incredible problems if DM does not exist. We're talking major conundrum here


What's the conundrum?

some have proposed a modified form of gravity to explain the observations


What "observations" are you talking about? The 100-300 km/s rates of velocity of the radial arms of Spiral galaxies? Just remember that such galaxies constitute only 1/3 the mass of the Universe.

But there are no observations
Just what are all these "observations you keep referring to?

observed galactic rotations
Only Spiral galaxies have the Rotation Curves that caught Zwicky's attention. I guess you don't know Elliptical galaxies constitute 2/3 the mass of the Universe & do not have RADIAL ARMS rotating at 100-300 km/s. The outer orbital stars of Elliptical galaxies typically orbit the host Elliptical at about 2 km/s, in perfect accord with Newtonian gravity calculations & is the reason Zwicky never included them in his hypotheses for DM.

compose
Apr 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (20) Apr 23, 2016
Try to explain gravity after then. Why gravitational lensing occurs around massive bodies? Why the space-time gets curved around them?


You make it sound like you don't think our Sun is a "massive" enough body that it can create "gravitational lensing" & thus the need for invisible masses creating huge wells of gravity all over the Universe except for inside our Solar System.

Why don't you take up a serious study of the Photon Deflection section of Einstein's General Relativity & learn something about the science of gravitational lensing. All the math Einstein used to calculate the present day methodology of calculations for "gravitational lensing" is derived in that section of GR, he used the visible mass of our Sun as the basis for his calculations.
compose
Apr 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 23, 2016
Photon deflection is gravitational lensing. They are one and the same. They are not separate phenomena.

What is a lens? A thing that bends light. In materials, it happens when a photon enters the material and excites a propagation through the electromagnetic fields of the material, where that propagation happens slower than light, and then exits into a new photon (or a new propagation in a different material). The result is "light bends toward the thickest part of the lens" in the broad rule of thumb.

Gravitational lensing is nothing more than light bending around a massive body. Precisely the same thing that Eddington observed with a star's light deflecting around the sun in an eclipse, just at different distance scales.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 23, 2016
The vacuum is elastic material

No it isn't. See? You don't have any proof for your anti-science proof, and I can reject it just as easily with the good ol' playground "nuh uh!"
compose
Apr 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.9 / 5 (17) Apr 23, 2016
Gravitational lensing is nothing more than light bending around a massive body.


By your insertion of the term "massive body", you amply demonstrate you do not understand the Photon Deflection section of Einstein's GR. The Field Equation Einstein employed in his calculations for calculating Photon Deflection do not contain a limitation of the SIZE of the mass for which a calculation is made, it can be for ANY SIZE so long as there is measurable mass that can be inserted into the equation.

Benni
2.9 / 5 (17) Apr 23, 2016
Deflection of light by the Sun = 4GM/c²R

........where M is the mass of the sun, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light and R is the distance from the surface of the sun, in solar radii. For light just grazing the sun this equation provides a deflection of 1.75 arcseconds.

If you want to calculate photon deflection by a mass other than the Sun you simply insert that Mass into the equation rather than that of the Sun, then insert the R for the Mass in question.
compose
Apr 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
del2
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 23, 2016
Gravitational lensing is nothing more than light bending around a massive body.


By your insertion of the term "massive body", you amply demonstrate you do not understand the Photon Deflection section of Einstein's GR. The Field Equation Einstein employed in his calculations for calculating Photon Deflection do not contain a limitation of the SIZE of the mass for which a calculation is made, it can be for ANY SIZE so long as there is measurable mass that can be inserted into the equation.


Benni, in everyday usage "massive" means "having a large mass", but in physics it just means "having mass". It's the opposite of "massless". So, for example, neutrinos were once thought to be massless, but they are now recognised as being massive (though their mass is very small).
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2016
Benni, in everyday usage "massive" means "having a large mass", but in physics it just means "having mass". It's the opposite of "massless". So, for example, neutrinos were once thought to be massless, but they are now recognised as being massive (though their mass is very small).
I've often thought that physicists should have coined "massful" for this usage.
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2016
But you can explain gravity with DM
Try to explain gravity after then. Why gravitational lensing occurs around massive bodies?

Because energy attracts energy with an inverse square force, to a good approximation.
This should be known to anyone with the guts to make assertions here.
Why the space-time gets curved around them?

That imo is an interpretation.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2016
@compose

Because you constantly speculate with space-time non sence, could you give definition of space and time?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (19) Apr 23, 2016
Gravitational lensing is nothing more than light bending around a massive body.


By your insertion of the term "massive body", you amply demonstrate you do not understand the Photon Deflection section of Einstein's GR. The Field Equation Einstein employed in his calculations for calculating Photon Deflection do not contain a limitation of the SIZE of the mass for which a calculation is made, it can be for ANY SIZE so long as there is measurable mass that can be inserted into the equation.


Benni, in everyday usage "massive" means "having a large mass", but in physics it just means "having mass". It's the opposite of "massless".


I considered the context, you're just looking to give Shavera an escape route for the obvious mistake he made because he didn't know that the equation does not place limitations on the size of M or R.
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2016

I considered the context, you're just looking to give Shavera an escape route for the obvious mistake he made because he didn't know that the equation does not place limitations on the size of M or R.

You vainly assume you are the only one who knows this equation.
That is not healthy.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (19) Apr 23, 2016
I considered the context, you're just looking to give Shavera an escape route for the obvious mistake he made because he didn't know that the equation does not place limitations on the size of M or R.


You vainly assume you are the only one who knows this equation.
That is not healthy.


No vanity on my part, I just know how to explain it & you don't. I rest my case.......
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2016

You vainly assume you are the only one who knows this equation.
That is not healthy.

No vanity on my part, I just know how to explain it & you don't. I rest my case.......

Vanity. Narcissism. Dunning-Kruger. All apply to you.
compose
Apr 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 23, 2016

You vainly assume you are the only one who knows this equation.
That is not healthy.

No vanity on my part, I just know how to explain it & you don't........

Vanity. Narcissism. Dunning-Kruger. All apply to you.
- Piss1

Hmmm...TheghostofOtto1923 (Otto Skorzeny) and Otto's sockpuppet, FrankHerbert (banned) were always accusing those posters with whom Otto disagreed, of suffering from Dunning-Kruger Effect. This is/was a method for Otto/FH, etc. to force out of Physorg those that Otto exacted vengeance on.

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is."

" Their research also suggests corollaries: highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.[1]"

Piss1 talks like Otto/FrankHerbert.
Phys1
4 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2016
@o_pervert
So what.
Dunning_Kruger is a well known psychological effect.
For a field study phys.org is ideal territory.
compose
Apr 23, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 23, 2016
LOL now o_sucker is upvoting itself.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2016
Thanks for confirming it.

:D
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 23, 2016
@o_pervert
So what.
Dunning_Kruger is a well known psychological effect.
For a field study phys.org is ideal territory.
- Pissypants1
Yes, phys.org IS ideal territory for studying people like you, Theghostofottoskorzeny, Capn StumpRump, FrankHerbert (banned), BAKOON, and all other Otto sock puppets and Otto's allies who have been sucked in.
We have been studying YOU, in particular, since you seem to have most recently glommed on to the Otto mystique. It is interesting how far your mental illness has advanced, where you imagine that you are far more knowledgeable than shavera, Urgent and other REAL SCIENTISTS.
The evidence is in that YOU are a "scientist-wannabe" just like your cohort, Capn StumpDump.
It is amusing to watch you work yourself into a frenzy over strangers on the internet. LMAO
Keep on doing what you're doing. You are a lot of laughs.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2016
LOL now o_sucker is upvoting itself.
- Da Schlub
How is that possible? Can I vote for myself now in Phys.org threads? If it is possible to do so, kindly tell me your secret on how to do it. I have said many times that this is my ONLY user name. If you wish to believe otherwise, that is your stupidity at work, bordering on mental illness and Psychopathy. The very same Psychopathy meme that Otto constantly refers to...without naming himself.
jim_xanara
2.9 / 5 (17) Apr 23, 2016
Colbourne

2 /5 (4) 16 hours ago
I remember reading something like this in an old English newspaper the Sunday Sport. "Apparently the WWII bomber on the moon is missing".
I think the whole theory of dark matter and dark energy is wrong and can be explained by another force.


Thanks for that. It's hard to get inside the mind of so many stupid trolls- look how much time is being wasted trying to figure out WTF is up with psychos like bshit and renni. Your quip reveals the typical, ubiquitous cognitive deficiencies demonstrated by the Electric Universe crowds and other self appointed critics of science. You really can't see what's total illogical about your argument, can you?

There is no OBSERVED anomaly that a bomber on the moon would explain. It can not be deduced from any set of observed conditions. In fact, your alternative science is much more like that WWII bomber on the moon. Irrelevant, explains nothing, based on no data.

Compost is just Zephir.
obama_socks
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 23, 2016
Colbourne

2 /5 (4) 16 hours ago
I remember reading something like this in an old English newspaper the Sunday Sport. "Apparently the WWII bomber on the moon is missing".
I think the whole theory of dark matter and dark energy is wrong and can be explained by another force.


Thanks for that. It's hard to get inside the mind of so many stupid trolls- look how much time is being wasted trying to figure out WTF is up with psychos like bshit and renni. Your quip reveals the typical, ubiquitous cognitive deficiencies demonstrated by the Electric Universe crowds and other self appointed critics of science. You really can't see what's total illogical about your argument, can you?

- jim_xanara
Interesting how YOU and so many others in this website are so perfectly willing to trash alternative theories/hypotheses without allowing for possibilities that, at least some or most of the Standard Model may be in grievous error. This is Luddism at its best.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (19) Apr 23, 2016
It's hard to get inside the mind of so many stupid trolls- look how much time is being wasted trying to figure out WTF is up with psychos like bshit and renni.


Well of course it would be hard for you to get "inside the mind" of mine, I spent 6 years studying Nuclear & Electrical Engineering in Engineering School, taking math courses the titles of which you would stutter & shake your head at trying to pronounce.

How adept are you at solving Differential Equations? Maybe you looked over a few of the Partial DEs in General Relativity & and provide us with some thoughts about a few of them?

Next you're about to head off on a rant about my comparison of your math skills to mine, but just remember that your the one who started it with the name calling or I would never have brought it up. In summation, you are 100% correct that you can't get inside my mind, because you can't function proficiently using the scientific & mathematical skills required of my profession.
theon
1 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2016
This is great news: one of the infinity of possibilities it is not! Up to next one!
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 24, 2016
Benni, are you sure you are sane?
You talk like a psycho.
compose
Apr 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2016
The dark matter filaments and worm holes also have their water surface analogies. The tsunami waves https://news.usc....s-power/ there. The 2010 survey showed that the villages in the shadow of small islets suffered some of the strongest tsunami impacts.

When I turn my tea I also see the spitting image of a wormhole.
Does that make the universe my cup of tea?
No.
compose
Apr 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4 / 5 (12) Apr 24, 2016
In any case, they do not contain axions.
compose
Apr 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 24, 2016
Axions are not mainstream, unless you call all non-crackpot physics mainstream.
compose
Apr 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Apr 24, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HeloMenelo
3.1 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2016
It's hard to get inside the mind of so many stupid trolls- look how much time is being wasted trying to figure out WTF is up with psychos like bshit and renni.


Well of course it would be hard for you to get "inside the mind" of mine, I spent 6 years studying Nuclear & Electrical Engineering in Engineering School, taking math courses the titles of which you would stutter & shake your head at trying to pronounce.

How adept are you at solving Differential Equations? Maybe you looked over a few of the Partial DEs in General Relativity & and provide us with some thoughts about a few of them?

Next you're about to head off on a rant about my comparison of your math skills to mine, but just remember that you are the one who started it on.

now now antisciencegorilla sockpuppet,you have one advantage though, you can count the branches as you swing through the trees ;)
HeloMenelo
3.1 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2016
LOL now o_sucker is upvoting itself.
- Da Schlub
How is that possible? Can I vote for myself now in Phys.org threads? If it is possible to do so, kindly tell me your secret on how to do it. I have said many times that this is my ONLY user name. If you wish to believe otherwise, that is your stupidity at work, bordering on mental illness and Psychopathy. The very same Psychopathy meme that Otto constantly refers to...without naming himself.

Oohh. making a monkey of himself Again ! in th volano thread Cptain Stumpy proved you created your own countless of sockpuppet by your own admission, so guess who's doing the upvoting ... yep yu guesed it, antigoracle's sockpuppets obama socks, aka dogbert, aka waterprophet, aka benni and the rest of the many dozens.... now monkey i see you're fan of getting faceslapped with every self insulted, self inflicted post... here monkey monkey... ;)
HeloMenelo
3.1 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2016
This is great news: one of the infinity of possibilities it is not! Up to next one!

yes monkey antigorilacle sockpuppet, need another bannana, i have plenty for you :D
antigoresockpuppet
2.8 / 5 (16) Apr 25, 2016
That's very generous. I wouldn't give that POS the sweat off my left testicle.
AGreatWhopper
2.6 / 5 (18) Apr 25, 2016
Monkey swinging through trees is one metaphor. I think it's too sophisticated, though. If I were doing the flash imagery thing a la Reggie Perrin, every time compost "spoke" I'd flash to a dirty little chihuahua humping your leg.

With antirational I'd make that a messy haired pekingese- doing the same- except with that breed you have the disgusting snorting and slavering.

bshit I imagine a cuckoo hatchling pushing the intended occupants of the nest to their death.

Canthink brings to mind Jackass, redone by xtian fundamentalists.

benni is two 3 year olds watching a porn show trying to imitate what they're seeing.
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2016
Benni (Bee) claims
I spent 6 years studying Nuclear & Electrical Engineering in Engineering School
As you keep claiming again & again & again yet *never* ever proven, so why keep stating - if not to force an ego position, are you sane ?

Bee claims
..taking math courses the titles of which you would stutter & shake your head at trying to pronounce
Did you pass if so why do you *always* back off Calculus all questions *ever* asked you ?

Bee asks
How adept are you at solving Differential Equations (DE)
Why not evaluate the Radiative transfer DE re greenhouse gas forcing & *prove* to all us dumb "neophytes" & rest of 97% Science community that greenhouse gas infra red is *not* adding >1.5 Watts/m^2 ?

Bee with another "tell" says
.. head off on a rant about my comparison of your math skills to mine
Are you sane, university trained engineers Don't write like you, well except maybe if they're drunk - are you *always* so ?

Buzzing Bee, proof ?
Steelwolf
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2016
Frankly, using photons, especially high energy ones like Gamma Rays, to look for ALPs is about like using bowling balls made of lead to detect either individual electrons or extremely low energy photons. Besides, they keep trying to figure these operations using the wrong time-scales.Considering that they have recently also finally been able to measure the angular momentum of a photon's spin we are slowly getting down to the range where these (Much) smaller than atomic or even (very) sub-quark sized particles will open up into a whole universe of it's own at the ALP scales, especially when they learn to scale the time frame down appropriately. We have to be able to accurately measure one millionth of the spin of an electron repeatedly and accurately, being able to 'see' that particular spot on the electron all the way through it's spin orbit as well as it's entire path along it's 'orbital shell' and how it gains and loses it's energy, every exact discrete quanta of energy.
Steelwolf
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2016
(Contd)
Until we get to the level that we can track an exact spot on an electron like that, through it's complete orbital iterations, then we will not be able to detect, manipulate and use such things as ALPs since we are plain not working on that scale, and that scale HAS to include units of time much smaller than even nuclear physicists are wont to work with. Matter/energy is infinitely divisible as is time, no matter what Planck theorized: every time we find a new, smaller structure of matter or energy it has some finer details to it that show finer graduations of that energy/mass as an inherent property or it shows the propagation of new and different forms of mass/energy transfer appropriate to the scale that will, most likely, appear similar in form to larger scale effects.
Phys1
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 26, 2016
... Considering that they have recently also finally been able to measure the angular momentum of a photon's spin ...

Don't believe everything PO writes. Electromagnetic spin angular momentum was detected in 1935 by Beth.
http://journals.a...v.48.471
Behind a paywall but there are web pages that describe this in more detail.
Garrote
2.4 / 5 (17) Apr 26, 2016
I think tindog needs a new ALU.
Steelwolf
1 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2016
Seeing as how they were having to work with evanescent waves in the article concerning the perpendicular force that a light wave produces at:

http://phys.org/n...tem-menu

So it shows that they are measuring things at a Much finer grade than what normal matter would allow for as these evanescent waves are the minute wave-form fluctuations that are smaller than the size of an electron, and in fact are the differences in charge along the surface of the electron's "Orbital Pathways" which are only 'Possible' places for the electron to be, when it is actually a cloud of much finer particles in it's native state with other electrons and balanced charges. Free electrons are more like globular clusters as opposed to a plasma or gas, which is what electron shells resemble when forming macro-level materials. We only ever see the electron surfaces since they are what bounce/emit the photons.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.